guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#sadoimpacto-v-clark-county-sheriffs-office-et-al
This is the start of #sadoimpacto-v-clark-county-sheriffs-office-et-al channel.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-01 10:19 p.m.
New Case
Case Type
civil
Case Number
CV-209-25
clerkFlow pinned a message to this channel.2025-08-28 06:54 p.m.
Brenda Cornwallis
Brenda Cornwallis 2025-06-01 10:20 p.m.
Assigned to @Awesome
Brenda CornwallisBrenda Cornwallis used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-01 10:20 p.m.
Case Modified
@Brenda Cornwallis has added @meowiitten to the case channel.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-01 10:21 p.m.
@meowiitten You’re requesting a TRO, correct? Can I get a summary of why this temporary, interim relief is warranted?
AwesomeAwesome
@meowiitten You’re requesting a TRO, correct? Can I get a summary of why this temporary, interim relief is warranted?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:33 p.m.
A movant is generally entitled to a temporary restraining order when he demonstrates the following 4 prongs: (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits;” (2) “that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm [without the TRO];” (3) “that the balance of equities tips in his favor;” and (4)“that an injunction is in the public interest.” See Jerry's Flower Barn v. State of Mayflower, No. 24-03 (Mayfl. Sup. Ct. Oct. 18, 2024) (Totoro, J., concurring) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

First, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits because the Live Fire Exercises Act (“LFEA”), as applied, violates due process rights under Mayflower Const. art. I, § 5. The statute permits live ammunition exercises in public spaces—i.e., the City of Lancer. The statute permits lethal and unlawful conduct: "it shall be lawful to shoot, injure, and kill those directly involved in the exercise, provided there is mutual consent on both sides, proper permissions have been obtained, and the exercise is held in compliance with this act" (3 M.S.C. 2 § 1503); "it shall be lawful to damage and destroy property belonging to the agency(s) involved in the exercise or belonging to the State, provided there is mutual consent on both sides, proper permission has been obtained, and the exercise is held in compliance with this act" (3 M.S.C. 2 § 1504).

Second, Plaintiff faces irreparable harm because Defendants may repeat the exercise at any time. There is a live fire exercise nearly every other day; death is irreparable harm. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

Third, the balance of equities heavily favors Plaintiff. Plaintiff asks only for a temporary halt to publicly conducted live fire events.

And fourth, the public interest demands restraint where state actors are authorized to “shoot, injure, and kill” during training exercises held in highly-populated civilian areas.
meowiittenmeowiitten
A movant is generally entitled to a temporary restraining order when he demonstrates the following 4 prongs: (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits;” (2) “that he is lik...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:34 p.m.
Exh 1:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:34 p.m.
The one today took place in the City of Lander, not at the MNG base. So the two should not be confused.
meowiittenmeowiitten
Exh 1:
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-01 10:35 p.m.
Hm, and they didn’t provide the location of where this live-fire was taking place, correct?
AwesomeAwesome
Hm, and they didn’t provide the location of where this live-fire was taking place, correct?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:37 p.m.
The statute allows for localized, county-wide, and state-wide live fire exercises. The one today was county-wide, so presumably it could've taken place anywhere (Mersea, Medford, etc.). However, the hub was Lander City. But, to answer your question: no. There was no particularized notice as to where the majority of the activities would be taking place. And that message was the only notice. There was no actual notice in-game, which is discretionary under 3 M.S.C. 2 § 1501. No one knew this was going on unless they checked government announcements.(edited)
meowiittenmeowiitten
The statute allows for localized, county-wide, and state-wide live fire exercises. The one today was county-wide, so presumably it could've taken place anywhere (Mersea, Medford, e...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-01 10:42 p.m.
Hm, that is indeed troubling. I’m inclined to grant a narrower TRO, but I’m hesitant to enjoin enforcement of the Act altogether (as applied to localities).(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Hm, that is indeed troubling. I’m inclined to grant a narrower TRO, but I’m hesitant to enjoin enforcement of the Act altogether (as applied to localities).(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:43 p.m.
Like I said, I only seek enjoinment of the public enforcement of the act. I take no issue with them practicing savagery on their own military property. It's when they come into our cities and do it that there is a problem
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:43 p.m.
But I will let you rule as you wish, Your Honor!
meowiittenmeowiitten
Like I said, I only seek enjoinment of the public enforcement of the act. I take no issue with them practicing savagery on their own military property. It's when they come into our...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:45 p.m.
And this enjoinment would only be temporary until we can get a proper briefing schedule for a PI(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:45 p.m.
I don't think there would be any major disservice done to the gov. in that time
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:46 p.m.
This would also not preclude legitimate law enforcement or military activity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:46 p.m.
Only live fire exercises
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:46 p.m.
Meaning, using live ammunition that can kill or maim someone
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-01 10:46 p.m.
Hence “shoot, injure, and kill”
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:12 a.m.
@Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:12 a.m.
A second county-wide live fire exercise was conducted the same day (yesterday). This one just came to my attention
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:12 a.m.
This one was only posted in the MNG server. No one would ever have any way of knowing this was the case, once again
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:13 a.m.
And even then, why should the MNG and the government in general expect people to be cognizant of these constant live fire "murder simulation" drills?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:13 a.m.
Near constantly
meowiittenmeowiitten
Near constantly
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:22 a.m.
I’m writing an Order.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:43 a.m.
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. First, preliminary injunctive relief, as here, is never granted as of right, for “[it] is an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Second, the Court applies the same standard to a temporary restraining order as that for a preliminary injunction. rochonto3 v. Singhski, No. CV-0102-25, Op. and Order Denying Mot. to Vacate, at 2, (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. Feb. 12 2025) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001); Ingram v. Galt, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995)). The factors the Court considers in any such request are, thus: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant in the absence of relief, (3) the balance between this harm and any injury the non-moving party would suffer if relief were granted (the so-called “balance of equities”), and (4) where the public interest lies. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008). And where, as here, the government is the opposing party, the last two factors merge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:45 a.m.
The Court is satisfied that, at least at this early stage, the Plaintiff (Movant) has shown a fair probability of success on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of immediate relief. The Court is also satisfied that the public interest does not lie in the Mayflower National Guard — or, indeed, the State — carrying out “exercises” involving firearms, live ammunition, and ordnances in a densely populated civilian area not closed or cordoned off by appropriate markings or signage. Similarly, the State will suffer minimal — or, most probably, no — harm from being required to take limited steps to prevent irreparable harm to bystanders or other non-participants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and Defendants, and all of their successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons acting in concert or participation with them, are forthwith and hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from directing, supervising, conducting, or participating in any training exercise involving the use of firearms, live ammunition, or other ordnances, if situated in or around the Township of Mersea, the City of Lander, or any other densely populated urban (civilian) area, unless (1) notice was provided to the public, detailing, describing, and otherwise setting forth the place or place(s) where the exercise would occur, at least one (1) hour prior to the commencement of the exercise; and (2) the place or place(s) where the exercise would occur are demarcated by barriers or other ploppables for the duration of the exercise, which were put up at least thirty (30) minutes prior to the commencement of the exercise. This Order is in effect for fourteen (14) days, or until further Order of the Court, whichever is earlier. Signed by Judge AwesomePIays. (Entered: 06/02/2025)

cc: @meowiitten @Solicitor General's Office
(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
The Court is satisfied that, at least at this early stage, the Plaintiff (Movant) has shown a fair probability of success on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm in ...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:46 a.m.
The @Prothonotary's Office is further DIRECTED to provide notice of the Court’s Order to the Mayflower National Guard and the Clark County Sheriff’s Office, and to furnish receipt thereof.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
The Court is satisfied that, at least at this early stage, the Plaintiff (Movant) has shown a fair probability of success on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm in ...(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:50 a.m.
With due respect, this order is just status quo ante with minimal procedural add-ons. One hour notice is already required by law (I do not contest the fact that they do follow this rule)... and live fire exercises are still allowed within populated civilian areas
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:51 a.m.
The procedural add-on being the requirement of markings and/or barriers
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:51 a.m.
This is not reasonable “public notice.”
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:51 a.m.
What this challenge is trying to do is bar them from doing any live fire exercises in public
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:52 a.m.
But not from doing it on their own property (i.e., Fort Standish)
meowiittenmeowiitten
But not from doing it on their own property (i.e., Fort Standish)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:54 a.m.
Well, this TRO, as I mentioned before, is limited in scope.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:54 a.m.
If you will:

The county-wide live fire exercise, conducted pursuant to LFEA, exposed
Plaintiff to the plausible threat of bodily harm or death. Plaintiff and others faced, and will
continue to face, “a real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant[s]” in Defendants
collective enforcement of LFEA. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 113 n.8 (1983).

And:

The exercise was conducted in such a manner that, ipso facto, no “reasonable
measures” under 3 M.S.C. § 1501 could have effectively protected civilians present within the
affected zones.
meowiittenmeowiitten
If you will: The county-wide live fire exercise, conducted pursuant to LFEA, exposed Plaintiff to the plausible threat of bodily harm or death. Plaintiff and others faced, and...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:55 a.m.
That’s a threadbare assertion that needs further briefing, though.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:56 a.m.
I thought it would be quite obvious by the statutes, no? They quite literally authorize the use of live ammunition and destructive devices to "shoot, injure, [destroy,] and kill"
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:56 a.m.
This is what the statute itself defines as a live fire exercise: "any training exercise that involves the usage of firearms, live ammunition, and damage to property or harm to another person(s) is expected to occur."
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:56 a.m.
The Act*
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:57 a.m.
No, I mean this.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:57 a.m.
Your assertion that no measure could afford adequate protection needs to be briefed.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:57 a.m.
I suppose
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:57 a.m.
I can’t conclude much from your Complaint (in that respect), as you don’t elaborate.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:58 a.m.
But I am still unsatisfied with the TRO. The Act itself admits harm is expected to occur.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 12:58 a.m.
And they do all of this in the middle of a city
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:59 a.m.
Again, until we brief the issue that no measure will or would ever be sufficient, I’m extremely hesitant to enjoin the State from conducting live fires in public areas altogether.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 12:59 a.m.
Once that’s briefed, I’ll have a more developed record to go off.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:00 a.m.
How about a prime facie showing?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:00 a.m.
prima facie
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:02 a.m.
I mean, that’d be hard to meet as you allege in your Complaint that the State failed to provide any notice whatsoever, outside of a server that the vast majority of the community is not in, with vague or nonexistent descriptions of the location(s) of the live-fire, and without barriers demarcating the area.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:02 a.m.
That was part of it, yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:02 a.m.
The overarching theme was that live fire exercises pose an inherent danger
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:02 a.m.
And cannot be done in a public space
meowiittenmeowiitten
The overarching theme was that live fire exercises pose an inherent danger
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:02 a.m.
As the Act offers itself
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:03 a.m.
The Act speaks for itself here
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:03 a.m.
I agree that it poses a danger; I just can’t see how you’d show that no measure could or ever will mitigate that risk, to the degree that you (and other bystanders) would be afforded reasonable protection.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:04 a.m.
Well, its like this
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:07 a.m.
This isn't like a real life military drill where they use simulated rounds or fake explosives
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:07 a.m.
They are actively expected to shoot at and kill each other
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:07 a.m.
That is the name of the game
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:08 a.m.
the intent of the legislature is for people to die
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:08 a.m.
to be shot and killed lol
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:09 a.m.
I don't think you can reasonably protect a bystander from being killed
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:09 a.m.
And you know the best part?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:09 a.m.
If the national guardsmen kill you, they can just claim statutory immunity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:10 a.m.
Of course, thats for a court to decide
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:14 a.m.
@Awesome Can you summon them and then we can hop onto answer + PI briefing schedule?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:14 a.m.
Singhski and/or Dero
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Can you summon them and then we can hop onto answer + PI briefing schedule?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:27 a.m.
Sure.
AwesomeAwesome used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-02 01:27 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @dero(edited)
AwesomeAwesome used
/summon
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-02 01:28 a.m.
:white_check_mark: Successfully summoned @singhski(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:30 a.m.
I’ll just start preparing my brief now then
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:31 a.m.
If they don’t respond to the Complaint then that brief can be converted into an MSJ or MJP
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:31 a.m.
Or just default… whatever
meowiittenmeowiitten
I don't think you can reasonably protect a bystander from being killed
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:42 a.m.
The tl;dr is that you’ve claimed they took zero steps, but are asking for a declaration that even if they did take steps, you (and others) would still be irreparably harmed. The problem is, there’s nothing in the factual record to support that assertion (and it thus needs to be further briefed).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:42 a.m.
^ that’s why the TRO is limited to requiring them to take steps
AwesomeAwesome
The tl;dr is that you’ve claimed they took zero steps, but are asking for a declaration that even if they did take steps, you (and others) would still be irreparably harmed. The pr...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:45 a.m.
I see that. But what I’m saying is that the employment of the statute’s commands are inherently dangerous. Like… on a facial reading, it’s shocking. Anyways, yeah, a brief will come soon
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:45 a.m.
Probably tomorrow evening after work
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:45 a.m.
Or afternoon
AwesomeAwesome
The tl;dr is that you’ve claimed they took zero steps, but are asking for a declaration that even if they did take steps, you (and others) would still be irreparably harmed. The pr...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
Also, in terms of an injunction, I don’t need an actual physical injury to get that relief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
There only needs to be a bona fide threat thereof
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
Hence the Lyon case
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
You need to show a likelihood of irreparable harm.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
Lyons?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
Right
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-02 01:47 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @dero to the case channel.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-02 01:48 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @singhski to the case channel.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:48 a.m.
I will rely heavily on the statute and I will also be importing an affidavit from an anonymous national guardsman
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:48 a.m.
May I ask why the guardsman must remain anonymous
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:48 a.m.
So you don’t fire him
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:48 a.m.
I think that unnecessarily impedes our ability to cross-examine
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:49 a.m.
or more so diminish the credibility of the affidavit if necessary
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:49 a.m.
I’m willing to disclose his identity only to the judge. I promised him I would keep his identity confidential
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:49 a.m.
He is protected under whistleblower laws
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:49 a.m.
Right but not from identity disclosure
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:49 a.m.
the whistleblower laws provide a guaranteed protection against retaliation because he is revealing his identity
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:50 a.m.
We’ll see. I need to read up on the specifics of our state’s whistleblower protections and common law doctrines. That’s a question for tomorrow, unfortunately!
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:50 a.m.
if he was not revealing his identity there would be no risk of retaliation
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:50 a.m.
Alright
AwesomeAwesome
The Court is satisfied that, at least at this early stage, the Plaintiff (Movant) has shown a fair probability of success on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm in ...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:50 a.m.
I’ll direct your attention to this.
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
@Awesome Is it possible we can have a preliminary hearing on that soon
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
just so we can get that squared away
derodero
@Awesome Is it possible we can have a preliminary hearing on that soon
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
We’ll have a hearing on it soonish; I’ll need to work out a time we’re all available.(edited)
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
the Guard heavily relies on this type of training as part of their curriculum
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
Alright, thank youy
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
you*
AwesomeAwesome
We’ll have a hearing on it soonish; I’ll need to work out a time we’re all available.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:51 a.m.
Would you prefer a hearing to a brief
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:52 a.m.
Or both/no preference
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:52 a.m.
If I have any lingering doubts, I’d definitely rather a hearing, so I can question the parties on their respective positions.
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:53 a.m.
Just to clarify, we are briefing and then possibly having a hearing
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:53 a.m.
Just so I know what to prepare
derodero
Just to clarify, we are briefing and then possibly having a hearing
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:54 a.m.
That’d probably be easiest.
dero
dero 2025-06-02 01:55 a.m.
Okay that works for us
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:56 a.m.
Since you’re here, please transmit this Order (https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1378920878842187878/1378957567098749008) to the CCSO and MNG.
derodero
the Guard heavily relies on this type of training as part of their curriculum
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:57 a.m.
I’d like to restate to you for clarity our position in this as-applied challenge to the Act is that is poses a substantial threat of harm when employed in public (e.g., county-wide). We do not pose a contest to it being used on military property, although the “shoot, injure, and kill” clauses are certainly too, shocking to the conscious—but that is not the direct subject of our challenge
AwesomeAwesome
Since you’re here, please transmit this Order (https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1378920878842187878/1378957567098749008) to the CCSO and MNG.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 01:57 a.m.
@dero
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:57 a.m.
I have a feeling we’d succeed if we challenged the law facially as well but…
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:58 a.m.
Not what we are doing
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 01:59 a.m.
Although I do think “shoot, injure, and kill” would certainly be unconstitutional all the time regardless of where it is employed(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
The Court is satisfied that, at least at this early stage, the Plaintiff (Movant) has shown a fair probability of success on the merits and that he will suffer irreparable harm in ...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 06:26 p.m.
@dero Please certify that you have provided this Order to the CCSO and MNG.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 07:24 p.m.
Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment, Memorandum in Support, Proposed Order, Exhibit
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 07:25 p.m.
@Awesome @singhski @dero
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 07:40 p.m.
@Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 07:40 p.m.
I have reason to believe the TRO is being violated, but I will go in game and investigate myself
AwesomeAwesome
@dero Please certify that you have provided this Order to the CCSO and MNG.
dero
dero 2025-06-02 07:48 p.m.
I certify that I have provided the order to CCSO and MNG's department heads ISpilledMyTacos and OmniGalaxy.
meowiittenmeowiitten
I have reason to believe the TRO is being violated, but I will go in game and investigate myself
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 07:55 p.m.
Keep me informed of any updates.
AwesomeAwesome
Keep me informed of any updates.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 08:03 p.m.
Looks like I got there too late. I saw a few military vehicles leaving the Bohan Yards area (no barriers or markings anywhere) but nothing substantial
🏳️‍🌈2
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-02 08:19 p.m.
@Awesome dawg tell me you can fix perms n shit
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-02 08:19 p.m.
(CHECK THE CHANNEL)
KezzeraKezzera
@Awesome dawg tell me you can fix perms n shit
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 08:20 p.m.
I can fix them now.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2025-06-02 08:23 p.m.
yay :D
meowiittenmeowiitten
Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Summary Judgment, Memorandum in Support, Proposed Order, Exhibit
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:12 p.m.
@Awesome How long do they have to respond?
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome How long do they have to respond?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 09:14 p.m.
Let’s say Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 10:00 p.m., 3 months ago, unless an extension is requested (and subsequently granted).

cc: @dero @singhski
meowiittenmeowiitten
Looks like I got there too late. I saw a few military vehicles leaving the Bohan Yards area (no barriers or markings anywhere) but nothing substantial
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 09:52 p.m.
So not around Mersea/Lander, then?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 09:52 p.m.
(or any other densely populated area)
AwesomeAwesome
So not around Mersea/Lander, then?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
Bohan Yards adjacent to Lander
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
Like near the port
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
In that area where the shops under the overpass
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
With the shops
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
I think that’s just Bogan
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
Bohan*
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-02 09:53 p.m.
I don’t recall frankly
meowiittenmeowiitten
I don’t recall frankly
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 09:54 p.m.
Ah, I’m not that familiar with the layout of Lander.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-02 09:54 p.m.
Alright, noted. If there’s evidence of a purported violation of the Court’s TRO, it’ll be dealt with appropriately.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:01 a.m.
@Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:01 a.m.
Seems like they are really pushing it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:01 a.m.
This is #2
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:02 a.m.
I'm going to go in game and see if I can catch it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:05 a.m.
I honestly feel like with this one it'd be impossible to comply with the TRO
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:05 a.m.
Assuming thats the entirety of Mersea
meowiittenmeowiitten
I'm going to go in game and see if I can catch it
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:08 a.m.
Hm, keep me informed.
AwesomeAwesome
Hm, keep me informed.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:10 a.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:10 a.m.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:11 a.m.
Do you have a recording?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:11 a.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:11 a.m.
Yes
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:11 a.m.
Recording now
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:21 a.m.
@Awesome Yup. They're most definitely conducting an exercise in the city
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:21 a.m.
Putting the clip together
meowiittenmeowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:40 a.m.
Video shows the entry barrier and the city. Military pretty much took over the whole town.

If you go to 2:27, you'll see a shooting between two individuals: the one in the black car who crashed, and a guardsman walking outside the Mersea Auto.

The guy who crashed and started shooting kenneytube, who is a Sergeant in the National Guard (First Attachment) and in the MSP. The guy who he was shooting at was, as mentioned, a national guardsman.

Kenneytube was wearing plainclothes, but was driving some sort of ELS-outfitted cruiser (Right Attachment). Kenneytube was on the MSP team at the time of the shooting (MSP is authorized to participate by statute)

Also, the whole town wasn't cordoned off. Only the MNG depot, the bridge, and part of suburb. If you spawned in Mersea, or drove there from an adjacent town, you'd be SOL. I died pretty quickly

@Awesome
(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:41 a.m.
So they're intentionally causing chaos in Mersea
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:42 a.m.
Blue-on-blue shootings
meowiittenmeowiitten
Video shows the entry barrier and the city. Military pretty much took over the whole town. If you go to 2:27, you'll see a shooting between two individuals: the one in the black ...(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:43 a.m.
Also I know its kenneytube because hes the only one who showed up as having died
meowiittenmeowiitten
Also I know its kenneytube because hes the only one who showed up as having died
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:46 a.m.
Do you have a depiction of the outer roads (i.e., the roads leading from/to Woodbury, Medford, or the State Prison)?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Do you have a depiction of the outer roads (i.e., the roads leading from/to Woodbury, Medford, or the State Prison)?(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:46 a.m.
Its hard to even get close without dying
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:47 a.m.
If that wasn’t blocked off at all, I’m not sure how that’d be compliant with the Court’s TRO.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:47 a.m.
But I can affirm under oath that there was no barriers in the roads leading from/to Woodbury
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:47 a.m.
And Medford
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:47 a.m.
(those roads)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:47 a.m.
ok
meowiittenmeowiitten
And Medford
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:48 a.m.
By chance, do you have a screenshot or list of the participants in the exercise (leaderboard), as well as who directed/supervised it?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
By chance, do you have a screenshot or list of the participants in the exercise (leaderboard), as well as who directed/supervised it?(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:50 a.m.
No idea. Take your pick lol
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:50 a.m.
AwesomeAwesome
By chance, do you have a screenshot or list of the participants in the exercise (leaderboard), as well as who directed/supervised it?(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:51 a.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:51 a.m.
This person announced it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:51 a.m.
That's all I can really confirm
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 12:51 a.m.
Wonderful.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 12:52 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @OmniGalaxy to the case channel.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 12:53 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @adrien to the case channel.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 12:53 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @Frost 🇨🇦 to the case channel.
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 12:56 a.m.
1. The live never started.
1. The live fire would have been fully compliant with the order.

Documentation and affidavits will be produced as necessary to support my statements.
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 12:56 a.m.
*the live fire
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 12:58 a.m.
OmniGalaxyOmniGalaxy
1. The live never started. 1. The live fire would have been fully compliant with the order. Documentation and affidavits will be produced as necessary to support my statement...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:00 a.m.
If it had started, and the roads leading from Medford/Woodbury were not “demarcated” with barriers, it would not have been compliant.
OmniGalaxyOmniGalaxy
1. The live never started. 1. The live fire would have been fully compliant with the order. Documentation and affidavits will be produced as necessary to support my statement...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:00 a.m.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:00 a.m.
That aside, I wasn’t aware the exercise didn’t actually commence.
AwesomeAwesome
That aside, I wasn’t aware the exercise didn’t actually commence.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:01 a.m.
If it didn't commence, why is everything showing to the contrary?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:01 a.m.
They facilitated the execution of one
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:01 a.m.
That is a fact
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:03 a.m.
A moderation notice is not the statutory requirement of executing a live fire - that is the transmission of the "STARTEX" message, which never took place.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:04 a.m.
Then you're all, more likely than not, guilty of aiding and abetting manslaughter pursuant to 3 M.S.C. 2 Section 1603
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:04 a.m.
Though that's not for this court to rule on
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 01:05 a.m.
Lieutenant Colonel Danny also personally informed me all entrances were blocked.

https://prnt.sc/Ous4IUMSPvwS
Captured with Lightshot
meowiittenmeowiitten
Click to see attachment.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:05 a.m.
...?
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 01:06 a.m.
You were not at every place at every point in time.
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 01:07 a.m.
"The photos he is using saying we didnt block off are after we all left the game"
- Lieutenant Colonel Danny
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:09 a.m.
I'll let the judge decide whatever he thinks. If he wants a motion in writing for civil contempt, so be it
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:10 a.m.
I would just like to re-iterate that we will have sworn statements from members of the 27th Engineer Battalion reaffirming that we were fully in compliance with the order.
OmniGalaxyOmniGalaxy
"The photos he is using saying we didnt block off are after we all left the game" - Lieutenant Colonel Danny
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:15 a.m.
Hm. I mean, in the absence of more evidence to support that an exercise had already commenced (a transmission of “STARTEX” or the like), and if MNG is willing to (and does) swear under penalty of perjury that an exercise had not commenced at that time, there’s not enough to support a violation of the Court’s TRO.(edited)
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:17 a.m.
We will have a statement from LTC Danny for you as soon as possible, Your Honor.
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:19 a.m.
May he be added to the channel, or would you prefer a filed statement? @Awesome
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:19 a.m.
@Danny
adrienadrien
@Danny
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:19 a.m.
Either is fine.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 01:19 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @Danny to the case channel.
adrien
adrien 2025-06-03 01:20 a.m.
Alright, he will make his statement under oath here.
AwesomeAwesome used
/administeroath
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 01:20 a.m.
@Danny(edited)
Oath Selection
Which type of oath would you like to swear to?

Religious - Involves swearing to god that your testimony is, or will be, truthful.

Non-Religious - Solemnly affirms that your testimony is, or will be, truthful, under the pains and penalties of perjury.
Religious OathNon-Religious Oath
clerkFlowBotclerkFlow
@Danny
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 01:20 a.m.
@Danny
Non-Religious Oath
Do you solemnly affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, under the pains and penalties of perjury?
Danny
Danny 2025-06-03 01:20 a.m.
Yes I do
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:21 a.m.
I'll let him finish but once he does I have a question to direct to your honor
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:25 a.m.
@Danny Alright, for the record, what position is it that you hold/occupy within the Mayflower National Guard?
AwesomeAwesome
@Danny Alright, for the record, what position is it that you hold/occupy within the Mayflower National Guard?
Danny
Danny 2025-06-03 01:26 a.m.
I am a Lieutenant Colonel and I hold the position of 27TH ENGINEER BATTALION "BASTION" Battalion Commander.
DannyDanny
I am a Lieutenant Colonel and I hold the position of 27TH ENGINEER BATTALION "BASTION" Battalion Commander.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:30 a.m.
Alright. And were you physically present today for the training exercise in/around Mersea announced by “potato_soup”?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Alright. And were you physically present today for the training exercise in/around Mersea announced by “potato_soup”?(edited)
Danny
Danny 2025-06-03 01:30 a.m.
Yes.
DannyDanny
Yes.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:31 a.m.
Alright, and what did this exercise involve?
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, and what did this exercise involve?
Danny
Danny 2025-06-03 01:32 a.m.
The exercise never started.
DannyDanny
The exercise never started.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:34 a.m.
Alright, that’s all.
AwesomeAwesome used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-06-03 01:34 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has removed @Danny from the case channel.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 01:35 a.m.
@meowiitten What was your question?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
@meowiitten What was your question?(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 01:54 a.m.
I would just defer back to the evidence and hold that even if they claim the exercise never commenced in the way that they define it, we have at least shown with clear and convincing evidence (standard for civil contempt), that they did, in fact, facilitate the exercise to near completion as delineated by the barriers and markings all throughout the town of Mersea. There was genuinely a tacit agreement to violate the order—even if not to absolute completion. Regardless, I can stomach this ruling for now as we wait for a brief in response to the MSJ
meowiittenmeowiitten
I would just defer back to the evidence and hold that even if they claim the exercise never commenced in the way that they define it, we have at least shown with clear and convinci...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 02:21 a.m.
Well, as it never commenced (objectively, at least on the facts and evidence before me), it’s hard to argue there was a violation of the Court’s TRO. That aside, even if walking right up to the line but not crossing it was a violation, it’s unclear what stage MNG were at in preparing the exercise (the Lieutenant General said several of them had already left).(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 02:27 a.m.
"The photos he is using saying we didnt block off are after we all left the game" ~ Lieutenant Colonel WoodenDanny12
(edited)
OmniGalaxy
OmniGalaxy 2025-06-03 03:53 a.m.
Your honor, if we were going to host the exercise it would have been done in compliance with the order.

To avoid further implications I have issued orders that have been executed by my subordinates to halt any off base live fires.
OmniGalaxyOmniGalaxy
Your honor, if we were going to host the exercise it would have been done in compliance with the order. To avoid further implications I have issued orders that have been executed...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:54 a.m.
Thank you for the latter part
dero
dero 2025-06-03 09:45 a.m.
@meowiitten Hey I have a question. Is the legal injury that you could've gotten hurt if you had been there
derodero
@meowiitten Hey I have a question. Is the legal injury that you could've gotten hurt if you had been there
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:40 a.m.
I alleged that I suffered harm at the outset and am under a plausible threat of serious future injury
dero
dero 2025-06-03 11:42 a.m.
Like physical harm?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:42 a.m.
By the way, the threat of serious future injury is standing enough for this kind of case (declaratory and injunctive relief). Otherwise pre-enforcement challenges wouldn’t exist
dero
dero 2025-06-03 11:42 a.m.
Im just wondering if you were shot or shot at
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:43 a.m.
I was in Lander City during the first exercise
derodero
Im just wondering if you were shot or shot at
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:43 a.m.
That wouldn’t even be relevant. If you’re gonna mindlessly bring up Lujan it’s not going to work(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:43 a.m.
That would be incredibly one-dimensional
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 11:52 a.m.
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (plaintiff may show a sufficiently plausible threat of future injury to possess standing to sue); see also Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement challenges have standing when the' prospect of injury is imminent)
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-03 02:54 p.m.
this is just speculative
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-03 02:55 p.m.
you still haven't shown how the threat is plausible
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-03 02:55 p.m.
that's why lyons lost his case
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
you still haven't shown how the threat is plausible
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:12 p.m.
Have you not conducted 3 live fire exercises in the last 48 hours...?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:12 p.m.
You can read the MSJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:14 p.m.
I respect that you need to defend your position regardless, because that's your job, but you don't need to be ignorant while doing it
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:14 p.m.
It would be entirely juvenile to rely on Lujan, like I imagine Dero while try to
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:16 p.m.
I do not need to be shot to sue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:16 p.m.
Or even shot at
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-03 03:29 p.m.
well you brought up lyons so let's talk about lyons
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-03 03:29 p.m.
how are your facts here sufficiently different from his?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-03 03:39 p.m.
LFEA explicitly authorizes live fire exercises in public civilian zones (as you keep authorizing); and
The statute defines these exercises as ones where harm to persons is expected, not just possible:
“...damage to property or harm to another person(s) is expected to occur.” (§ 1202)

Lyons had to speculate that a rogue officer might hurt him again
My risk is embedded in an ongoing, state-sanctioned program
OmniGalaxyOmniGalaxy
Your honor, if we were going to host the exercise it would have been done in compliance with the order. To avoid further implications I have issued orders that have been executed...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-03 07:17 p.m.
To be clear, they are not required to do that by the Court’s TRO, but if that’s easier for you, that’s fine.
dero
dero 2025-06-04 09:47 p.m.
@Awesome
derodero
@Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 09:50 p.m.
@meowiitten
AwesomeAwesome
@meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-04 09:59 p.m.
I'll do a reply brief—however I'd like to clarify that my motion is for summary judgment
meowiittenmeowiitten
I'll do a reply brief—however I'd like to clarify that my motion is for summary judgment
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:17 p.m.
No need(edited)
derodero
Click to see attachment.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:17 p.m.
@dero Refile as “Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment”, if you are opposing.
AwesomeAwesome
@dero Refile as “Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment”, if you are opposing.
dero
dero 2025-06-04 10:19 p.m.
Are we not also briefing on injunction
dero
dero 2025-06-04 10:19 p.m.
Im confused
AwesomeAwesome
No need(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-04 10:23 p.m.
No need at moment, or do you not expect a reply at all?
meowiittenmeowiitten
No need at moment, or do you not expect a reply at all?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:30 p.m.
Not at the moment, no.
derodero
Im confused
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:30 p.m.
I don’t believe Plaintiff has requested a preliminary injunction; only a temporary restraining order (which was already granted).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:31 p.m.
He has instead moved for summary judgment & a permanent injunction.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 10:31 p.m.
@meowiitten can correct me if I’m wrong.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
@meowiitten can correct me if I’m wrong.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-04 10:33 p.m.
Yes
AwesomeAwesome
I don’t believe Plaintiff has requested a preliminary injunction; only a temporary restraining order (which was already granted).
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:21 p.m.
I didnt even see the MSJ. I figured you had called for briefs for prelim injunction because youre supposed to have that hearing as soon as possible after a TRO is issued
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:21 p.m.
Well thats my fault. ill just submit what I have. totally briefed the wrong issue
derodero
Well thats my fault. ill just submit what I have. totally briefed the wrong issue
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-04 11:21 p.m.
Do you want me to respond to your brief or hold off
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:22 p.m.
well I dont think I get more time because it was entirely my fault for not paying attention so just reply i suppose
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-04 11:22 p.m.
Alright
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:22 p.m.
ill rename it though to be reply to MSJ
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:23 p.m.
@Awesome
dero
dero 2025-06-04 11:24 p.m.
At least the injury in fact part is relevant
derodero
Well thats my fault. ill just submit what I have. totally briefed the wrong issue
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 11:38 p.m.
I was intending to hold a hearing, as I expected Plaintiff to move for a preliminary injunction (he did not), but I’ve modified the Court’s TRO.
derodero
At least the injury in fact part is relevant
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 11:38 p.m.
Well, as it specifically addresses the issue of preliminary injunctive relief, and not that of summary judgment, I cannot accept it. You’ll need to redo it.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-04 11:39 p.m.
I can give you additional time, if needed.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:24 a.m.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
@Awesome @dero
AwesomeAwesome
Well, as it specifically addresses the issue of preliminary injunctive relief, and not that of summary judgment, I cannot accept it. You’ll need to redo it.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:33 a.m.
With due respect, I don’t think he has much to defend himself with
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:33 a.m.
That’s not credit to his wit it’s credit to the tools at his disposal, being law that is favorable to him
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:34 a.m.
There is none, or hardly any at all
AwesomeAwesome
Well, as it specifically addresses the issue of preliminary injunctive relief, and not that of summary judgment, I cannot accept it. You’ll need to redo it.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-05 12:34 a.m.
Ok, nevermind then.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-05 12:34 a.m.
If Plaintiff doesn’t mind, then I’m not going to push it.
AwesomeAwesome
If Plaintiff doesn’t mind, then I’m not going to push it.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:55 p.m.
Do you need time to think on it or can I just assume SJ is granted
meowiittenmeowiitten
Do you need time to think on it or can I just assume SJ is granted
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-05 12:56 p.m.
I’ll need to write a written opinion, since the standing issue seems to be the only issue in dispute.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-05 12:57 p.m.
Oh, well, that and an injunction “harms the public interest.”
AwesomeAwesome
I’ll need to write a written opinion, since the standing issue seems to be the only issue in dispute.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-05 12:57 p.m.
When can we expect a ruling
meowiittenmeowiitten
When can we expect a ruling
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-05 12:58 p.m.
Ideally (probably) by the weekend.(edited)
Awesome pinned a message to this channel.2025-08-28 06:54 p.m.
Awesome pinned a message to this channel.2025-08-28 06:54 p.m.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-08 12:45 a.m.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
@dero @singhski @Awesome
meowiittenmeowiitten
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT @dero @singhski @Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-08 12:47 a.m.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT BY THE COURT
@dero @singhski
dero
dero 2025-06-08 02:02 a.m.
@Awesome hi can i have added 24 hours considering my briefs took issue with standing and jurisdiction and i had to fight the tro so early on anyway
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-08 02:31 a.m.
Default would be anterior to SJ unless he grants SJ
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-09 09:24 p.m.
@Awesome Well?
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Well?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-09 09:49 p.m.
Apologies, this (and anything else outstanding) that requires a written (PDF) opinion will be dealt with tomorrow or the day thereafter. My WiFi is being shoddy, I’m currently on mobile data, and I had minor surgery yesterday.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-09 09:49 p.m.
so, hectic week.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-09 09:49 p.m.
That's ok
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-12 11:32 p.m.
@Awesome Any update
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-16 06:57 p.m.
@Awesome Any update
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-18 08:41 p.m.
@Awesome SIR!
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 02:38 p.m.
MINUTE ORDER: On the Court’s own motion, so as to preserve the status quo ante pending the Court’s disposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court’s Order, dated 6 June 2025 (Temporary Restraining Order), is amended so as to be in effect for a further fourteen (14) days or until further Order of the Court, whichever is earlier. Signed by Judge AwesomePIays. (Entered: 06/19/2025)

cc: @meowiitten @Solicitor General's Office
(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 02:39 p.m.
Apologies for the delay; I’ve been busy writing the Opinion and Order, and it should be out soonish.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 02:48 p.m.
@Awesome Paperless motion to request that the Court please reconsider this
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 02:48 p.m.
The status quo is that live fires are allowed
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 02:48 p.m.
A further 14 days of restriction would severely hamper MNG operational effectiveness
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 02:49 p.m.
We have a lot of exercises planned and this order would significantly harm our ability to stay ready
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
A further 14 days of restriction would severely hamper MNG operational effectiveness
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 02:53 p.m.
How so? It does not prohibit exercises. It only requires, insofar as any densely populated urban (civilian) areas, that (1) “notice [be] provided to the public, detailing, describing, and otherwise setting force the place or place(s) where the exercise would occur, at least one hour prior to the commencement of the exercise”; and (2) “the place or place(s) where the exercise would occur are demarcated by barriers or other ploppables for the duration of the exercise.”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 02:53 p.m.
I frankly do not see, nor have you articulated, how this would be an impediment to military readiness.
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
We have a lot of exercises planned and this order would significantly harm our ability to stay ready
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 02:54 p.m.
Also what does "across multiple installations" mean?
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 02:54 p.m.
Like Fort Standish and what else?
AwesomeAwesome
I frankly do not see, nor have you articulated, how this would be an impediment to military readiness.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:00 p.m.
The scale of exercises with respect to area makes it infeasible and at best unreasonably burdensome to place barriers or completely cordon off an area. I appreciate that the plaintiff's and the Court's concern for public welfare and I understand why these guidelines have been laid out, but in practice they effectively bar proper training in urban areas. The public safety concern is mitigated when we consider that the actual risk of civilian harm occuring in these exercised is extremely low when we look at how many times such harm has actually occurred in the past, compared to how many exercises we have conducted.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:04 p.m.
In addition, given the actual risk of injury to civilians based on prior exercises, we feel that the harm caused by shutting down a city's traffic completely with barriers is worse than indirectly allowing some urgent traffic to flow through during an exercise.
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
The scale of exercises with respect to area makes it infeasible and at best unreasonably burdensome to place barriers or completely cordon off an area. I appreciate that the plaint...
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:06 p.m.
What does "across multiple installations" mean
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:06 p.m.
Please
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:08 p.m.
Sigh I guess I have to make it an interrogatory
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
The scale of exercises with respect to area makes it infeasible and at best unreasonably burdensome to place barriers or completely cordon off an area. I appreciate that the plaint...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:09 p.m.
3 M.S.C. 2 § 1305 already requires you to provide “some form of public notice at least 1 hour prior to the occurrence of” any exercise. Likewise, 3 M.S.C. § 1501 already requires you to “take reasonable measures to protect those not directly participating in any” exercise. I frankly do not see the harm in telling the public where, specifically, the exercise is occurring — that way, they can make an informed choice about whether (or not) to participate.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:10 p.m.
We accept the requirement to tell the public where the exercise is occuring, and we do follow this rule without issue
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:10 p.m.
Nor do I see the harm in separating the area where the exercise is taking place with barriers, to prevent collateral damage. Nothing in the Court’s Order requires you to “shut[] down a city’s traffic completely.”
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:10 p.m.
However, the TRO goes several steps further
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:10 p.m.
There's no evidence of widespread collateral damage as a result of MNG live fires
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:11 p.m.
There is only evidence to the contrary
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:11 p.m.
these have happened so many times and there are very rarely any problems
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:11 p.m.
The rate of injury/death in a city very likely goes down when a MNG live fire happens
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:11 p.m.
It only requires you to demarcate the area with ploppables. You could, and indeed have in the past, simply post barriers around the exercise zone.(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:11 p.m.
criminals are less likely to attack other people when MNG is in town
AwesomeAwesome
It only requires you to demarcate the area with ploppables. You could, and indeed have in the past, simply post barriers around the exercise zone.(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:12 p.m.
But the exercises usually take up much more than that
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:12 p.m.
An effective live fire scenario needs to take up entire blocks, if not the entire town and surrounding land
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:12 p.m.
If we could just shut down a couple of roads we could just do it at our base
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:13 p.m.
It's so incredibly burdensome to both MNG and probably even more so for the general public that it just becomes not worth doing anymore
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:13 p.m.
Why do you need to take over an entire densely populated urban civilian area to carry out a training exercise?
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:14 p.m.
May the Court please consider at least dropping the requirement to mark the area with ploppables?
AwesomeAwesome
Why do you need to take over an entire densely populated urban civilian area to carry out a training exercise?
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:14 p.m.
Because when terrorist attacks happen, they aren't limited to certain roads or city blocks
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:14 p.m.
Terrorists like to target entire cities and in particular, densely populated ones
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:14 p.m.
We saw that during e.g. the MRF attacks
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:15 p.m.
That's why I stress operational readiness
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:15 p.m.
It is not a realistic training scenario if we only block off a couple of roads or a block or two
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:16 p.m.
I’m incredibly skeptical of your argument that these modest — and, frankly, mild — requirements are somehow hurting military readiness. What about people who live in the surrounding area, or passer-by’s? Are they supposed to take shelter or not enter the exercise area, without knowing an exercise is ongoing (due to the absence of a marked zone)?
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:17 p.m.
The legislature recognized that public notice was enough
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:17 p.m.
In the past, MNG has literally told people an exercise is “ongoing,” have not specified where, and civilians have inevitably gotten hurt — or, worse, killed.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:17 p.m.
The passerbys are almost never injured in exercises
AwesomeAwesome
I’m incredibly skeptical of your argument that these modest — and, frankly, mild — requirements are somehow hurting military readiness. What about people who live in the surroundin...
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:18 p.m.
People living in the exercise area do not benefit from the ploppables requirement anyway
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
People living in the exercise area do not benefit from the ploppables requirement anyway
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:20 p.m.
@meowiitten?
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
People living in the exercise area do not benefit from the ploppables requirement anyway
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:21 p.m.
Probably because they're already dead
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:21 p.m.
Funny
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:21 p.m.
Or being shot at
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:22 p.m.
There is only evidence to the contrary
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
The rate of injury/death in a city very likely goes down when a MNG live fire happens
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:22 p.m.
I'd put money on this honestly, obviously excluding guardsman deaths
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:22 p.m.
@Awesome I'm not getting into a back and forth with this guy. When can we expect a ruling on the MSJ or default motion
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
People living in the exercise area do not benefit from the ploppables requirement anyway
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:24 p.m.
Alright, so, why do these “whole town” exercises need to happen? Can you imagine if, say, NYC was closed and became a warzone because the National Guard wanted to conduct a training exercise?(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:24 p.m.
Ok I don't think I'm gonna change any minds
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:24 p.m.
But I'm gonna end with this
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:24 p.m.
Can you imagine if all of NYC was taken over every month or so by armed terrorist groups
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:24 p.m.
That's the world we live in on Roblox
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
Can you imagine if all of NYC was taken over every month or so by armed terrorist groups
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
If that was the case you can bet the military would be doing city-wide exercises
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
Like, frankly, I’m not even blocking these exercises altogether, insofar as densely populated urban (civilian) areas. I could — in fact, I was invited to do so by the Plaintiff — but I didn’t.(edited)
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
Can you imagine if all of NYC was taken over every month or so by armed terrorist groups
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
Actually I underexaggerated
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
It happens weekly
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
if not more
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:25 p.m.
I accept that IRL it would be weird if the military shut down a city to perform exercises every now and then
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:26 p.m.
But if IRL terrorists took over the entire city every week then that's not that bad
Frost 🇨🇦Frost 🇨🇦
If that was the case you can bet the military would be doing city-wide exercises
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:27 p.m.
This would almost certainly be unlawful and unconstitutional.
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:28 p.m.
I disagree that it would be unconstitutional for the military to perform exercises in a city that gets regularly overrun by terrorists that blow up every car they see and stack bodies of police officers
Frost 🇨🇦
Frost 🇨🇦 2025-06-19 03:28 p.m.
However, with respect, I defer to the Court.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:29 p.m.
That aside, this is Roblox — I recognize that — but frankly no IRL (or otherwise) precedent supports your position that you can take over an entire (civilian) town, use it as a simulated warzone, and not cordon it off.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-19 03:30 p.m.
IRL, I’d be inclined to go much, much further.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:30 p.m.
My Roblox perspective was ceding that allowing them to do it on military property, that being Fort Standish, was fine
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 03:30 p.m.
That is my view
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-19 08:26 p.m.
Anyways when can we expect SJ @Awesome
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-21 09:34 p.m.
@AwesomePIays Please. Sir.
😭1
AwesomeAwesome
Apologies for the delay; I’ve been busy writing the Opinion and Order, and it should be out soonish.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-21 11:03 p.m.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-21 11:03 p.m.
@meowiitten
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-06-30 08:00 p.m.
@Awesome Sir
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome Sir
Awesome
Awesome 2025-06-30 08:15 p.m.
It’ll be out by Saturday, EST.(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 10:22 p.m.
@Awesome
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-05 10:39 p.m.
Forgot to edit that timeline. Saturday, EST.
🟨1
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 10:39 p.m.
It's saturday
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-05 10:39 p.m.
Over in about an hour and a half
meowiittenmeowiitten
Over in about an hour and a half
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-06 12:31 a.m.
I was referring to > 7 AM but…
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 12:32 a.m.
It is now sunday est
meowiittenmeowiitten
It is now sunday est
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-06 12:33 a.m.
Yea, I’m aware; I wasn’t at the time I set those deadlines. I’m aiming for the ballpark of 10–11 PM AEST, whatever that is EST.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-06 10:03 a.m.
It'll be slightly later (like, another couple of hrs, at most), but I'm like 85% done.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-06 12:32 p.m.
Ok, I've finished basically everything but one section (a few paras), which I'll finish in a few hours (or when I wake up, as I'm extremely tired).(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 06:33 p.m.
@Awesome :😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭::😭:
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-06 11:48 p.m.
@Awesome :😭: :😭:
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome :😭: :😭:
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 01:39 a.m.
Sorry, I only recently woke up. I’ve yet to eat, so once I do that, I’ll finish the remaining bit.
AwesomeAwesome
Sorry, I only recently woke up. I’ve yet to eat, so once I do that, I’ll finish the remaining bit.
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 01:40 a.m.
3:40 PM wakeup are you OK sir(edited)
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 01:03 p.m.
@Awesome SIR
meowiittenmeowiitten
@Awesome SIR
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 01:09 p.m.
Sorry, I had some errands to run. It should be wrapped up within the next two hours or so.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:36 p.m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qeqGrkMJ8KHzHvlpyZBv18va2Iiv1eAd/view?usp=sharing

@meowiitten @Solicitor General's Office @Prothonotary's Office
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:36 p.m.
Apologies for the delay.
AwesomeAwesome
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qeqGrkMJ8KHzHvlpyZBv18va2Iiv1eAd/view?usp=sharing @meowiitten @Solicitor General's Office @Prothonotary's Office
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:37 p.m.
@krm @OmniGalaxy @cabot
meowiittenmeowiitten
@krm @OmniGalaxy @cabot
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:38 p.m.
tldr: live-fires in civilian areas are permanently enjoined
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:48 p.m.
well, densely populated civilian areas(edited)
cabot
cabot 2025-07-07 03:52 p.m.
Gg
meowiittenmeowiitten
@krm @OmniGalaxy @cabot
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:53 p.m.
@krabz
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 03:53 p.m.
forgot to tag him since it involves state code
AwesomeAwesome
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qeqGrkMJ8KHzHvlpyZBv18va2Iiv1eAd/view?usp=sharing @meowiitten @Solicitor General's Office @Prothonotary's Office
meowiitten
meowiitten 2025-07-07 03:56 p.m.
could you get this posted in gov announcements
honkhonk
honkhonk 2025-07-07 04:42 p.m.
The Prothonotary takes note of this.
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ Server2025-07-07 05:01 p.m.
honkhonk
honkhonk 2025-07-07 05:09 p.m.
As per ordered, this case is now considered closed.
krabzatonin ᴏᴍServerkrabzatonin ᴏᴍ
Click to see attachment.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-07 08:51 p.m.
It’s only inactive as-applied, not entirely?
AwesomeAwesome
It’s only inactive as-applied, not entirely?
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-07-07 09:33 p.m.
Yea i told them that, your opinion is linked in the thing
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-07-07 09:33 p.m.
so people can read the limitations(edited)
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-07-07 09:34 p.m.
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-07-07 09:34 p.m.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-07-09 10:50 p.m.
@Prothonotary's Office Archive pls.
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-10 01:02 a.m.
Channel Permissions Synced
Permissions have been synced to Volume VIII Archives.
XerxyXerxy used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-10 01:03 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-07-10 01:03 a.m.
Exported 408 messages